German Plane reference?

The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.

> 2533274850752370;1:
> The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.

The (exo/atmospheric) aircraft on said profile picture is that of the UNSC’s B-65 Shortsword, which is itself intended to be a reference to the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber.

Though Northrop-Grumman did study the specs of the Horton HIX (and the ‘working model’ of it, the HO-229 V3) to assist with the design of the B-2, so if you want to be pedantic about it, sure, the B-65 is an evolution of a Luftwaffle aircraft (and same with the GA-TL1 Longsword in that case).

> 2533274942408157;2:
> > 2533274850752370;1:
> > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
>
>
> The (exo/atmospheric) aircraft on said profile picture is that of the UNSC’s B-65 Shortsword, which is itself intended to be a reference to the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber.
>
> Though Northrop-Grumman did study the specs of the Horton HIX (and the ‘working model’ of it, the HO-229 V3) to assist with the design of the B-2, so if you want to be pedantic about it, sure, the B-65 is an evolution of a Luftwaffle aircraft (and same with the GA-TL1 Longsword in that case).

Thanks man.I see effort.Very good.A spartan who has knowledge in halo and does research.

> 2533274850752370;3:
> > 2533274942408157;2:
> > > 2533274850752370;1:
> > > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
> >
> >
> > The (exo/atmospheric) aircraft on said profile picture is that of the UNSC’s B-65 Shortsword, which is itself intended to be a reference to the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber.
> >
> > Though Northrop-Grumman did study the specs of the Horton HIX (and the ‘working model’ of it, the HO-229 V3) to assist with the design of the B-2, so if you want to be pedantic about it, sure, the B-65 is an evolution of a Luftwaffle aircraft (and same with the GA-TL1 Longsword in that case).
>
>
> Thanks man.I see effort.Very good.A spartan who has knowledge in halo and does research.

Oh, I am very interested in Halo’s lore.

And it isn’t the first time I’ve done a writeup on UNSC aircraft.

> - AV-49 Wasp: Two autocannons (no information on bore size), two missile launchers. Shielded. Approximate modern equivalent: OH-58 Kiowa (remember those?)
>
> - AV-14 Hornet: Two triple-barreled rotary cannons (no information on bore size), two integrated missile pods (with approx. five missiles loaded in each, going off of the model). One sub-variant possesses a single 12.7mm autocannon mounted underneath the nose of the aircraft (Halo Wars 1 version). Approximate modern equivalent: MH-6 Little Bird
>
> - AV-19 SkyHawk: Four forward-facing 50mm autocannons, four single missile pods. Approximate modern equivalent: AH-64 Apache (only without the huge missile pods).
>
> - AV-22 Sparrowhawk: Two (apparently) triple-barreled swivel-mounted 20mm autocannons, one M6 laser system mounted underneath the nose of the aircraft. Approximate modern equivalent: AH-1 Cobra (only without the missiles).
>
> - UH-144 Falcon: One nose-mounted 20mm autocannon. Two hardpoints in the troop bay allow for additional crew-served weapons to be mounted on, ranging from the standard 12.7mm machine gun to a 40mm semi-automatic grenade launcher with pseudo-homing munitions (against aircraft) that can release EM pulses upon munition detonation. Approximate modern equivalent: V-22 Osprey.
>
> - B-61 Shortsword: Two 30mm autocannons. Large bomb payload (though the exact size is unknown, as is the same with EVERY SINGLE BOMBER in the UNSC arsenal). Approximate modern equivalent: A-3 Skywarrior (approximately), design is akin to that of the B-2 Spirit.
>
> - F-41 Broadsword: Two 35mm autocannons, two missile pods (which can fit two missiles each, according to the model). Can carry at least one bomb. Shielded. Approximate modern equivalent: F-35 Lightning II.
>
> - D77-TC Pelican: 40mm gatling prior to 2525, replaced by a 70mm swivel-mounted autocannon (with a 120 degree traverse) on most models after 2525. Two missile pods with eight missiles loaded in each, additional missiles held within). Approximate modern equivalent: Mi-24/Hind (combining firepower with troop transport/tank-hauling capability).
>
> - G79H-TC Pelican: 70mm nose-mounted swivel-mounted autocannon. Dorsal-mounted 90mm cannon capable of swiveling around. M8C heavy nose-mounted (Spartan) laser system, likely next to/attached to the 70mm autocannon. Two 12.7mm machine guns mounted on the left and right sides of the aircraft, underneath the wings. Approximate modern equivalent: Mi-24/Hind (only even more upgunned).
>
> - AC-220 Vulture: Four swivel-mounted 20mm cannons chambered in .50 caliber (it is likely a typo given the effects of that specific weapon, but sadly, it remains canon). 4-8 large missile pods with one missile loaded in each (additional missiles contained within). 18 smaller missile pods (with one missile each) for additional anti-air capability. Approximate modern equivalent: AC-130 Spectre.
>
> - GA-TL1 Longsword, C712 variant: Two forward-mounted 50mm autocannons, four missile hardpoints. Large bomb bay. Approximate modern equivalent: B-52 Stratofortress (did I mention that the GA-TL1 is huge?)
>
> - GA-TL1 Longsword, C709 variant: One nose-mounted 110mm rotary cannon, two ventral-mounted retractable swivel-capable (90 degree traverse) 120mm cannons, four missile hardpoints, and a bomb bay capable of carrying 36 mines (of unknown size). Approximate modern equivalent: A-10 Thunderbolt II (on PCP).

And now I’ll have to edit the bolded section, because the B-65’s appearance is actually more akin to the Ho-229 than the B-2. Also will check with Halopedia staff to make an edit to their trivia section for the Shortsword for the same reasons.

…Hell, it fits the criteria for some of the specs too, such as the 30mm MK 108s (an exact match for the B-65’s 30mm MLAs) - the only reason for using the A-3 Skywarrior as an example of a ‘modern’ Shortsword (handwaving away the fact of the A-3 being retired for a while now) is that it actually had guns. The B-1 and B-2 don’t.

…The only thing that doesn’t match is the size (well, that and the flight ceiling, and the possibility that the B-65 could be nuclear-powered like the GA-TL1). The B-65’s size is more of a match to the B-2 (longer length, shorter wingspan, about the same height though - with landing gear up) than the Luftwaffe’s experimental long-bomber. Damn near everything else checks out though.

Hey, Beta 5 Operator, VerbalStatue253, what do you think about this?

“This is Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”

> 2533275031939856;5:
> “This is Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”

Do I think that Ensemble Studios had an obscure -Yoink!- experimental aircraft in mind when they drew up the design of the B-65? No, it was more than likely ‘futuristic light B-2 Spirit’, a smaller strategic bomber to fill the role of the huge–Yoink- Longsword C712 variant.

And if anybody tries to use this post to claim ‘UNSC = National Socialists/fascists’, well, that was most certainly not the intention behind it.

> 2533274942408157;6:
> > 2533275031939856;5:
> > “This is Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”
>
>
> Do I think that Ensemble Studios had an obscure -Yoink!- experimental aircraft in mind when they drew up the design of the B-65? No, it was more than likely ‘futuristic light B-2 Spirit’, a smaller strategic bomber to fill the role of the huge–Yoink- Longsword C712 variant.
>
> And if anybody tries to use this post to claim ‘UNSC = National Socialists/fascists’, well, that was most certainly not the intention behind it.

I just like the design of the shortsword and HO 229.I do not like Nazis but I love Germany.(Germany is awesome)

> 2533274942408157;4:
> > 2533274850752370;3:
> > > 2533274942408157;2:
> > > > 2533274850752370;1:
> > > > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
> > >
> > >
> > > The (exo/atmospheric) aircraft on said profile picture is that of the UNSC’s B-65 Shortsword, which is itself intended to be a reference to the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber.
> > >
> > > Though Northrop-Grumman did study the specs of the Horton HIX (and the ‘working model’ of it, the HO-229 V3) to assist with the design of the B-2, so if you want to be pedantic about it, sure, the B-65 is an evolution of a Luftwaffle aircraft (and same with the GA-TL1 Longsword in that case).
> >
> >
> > Thanks man.I see effort.Very good.A spartan who has knowledge in halo and does research.
>
>
> Oh, I am very interested in Halo’s lore.
>
> And it isn’t the first time I’ve done a writeup on UNSC aircraft.
>
>
> > - AV-49 Wasp: Two autocannons (no information on bore size), two missile launchers. Shielded. Approximate modern equivalent: OH-58 Kiowa (remember those?)
> >
> > - AV-14 Hornet: Two triple-barreled rotary cannons (no information on bore size), two integrated missile pods (with approx. five missiles loaded in each, going off of the model). One sub-variant possesses a single 12.7mm autocannon mounted underneath the nose of the aircraft (Halo Wars 1 version). Approximate modern equivalent: MH-6 Little Bird
> >
> > - AV-19 SkyHawk: Four forward-facing 50mm autocannons, four single missile pods. Approximate modern equivalent: AH-64 Apache (only without the huge missile pods).
> >
> > - AV-22 Sparrowhawk: Two (apparently) triple-barreled swivel-mounted 20mm autocannons, one M6 laser system mounted underneath the nose of the aircraft. Approximate modern equivalent: AH-1 Cobra (only without the missiles).
> >
> > - UH-144 Falcon: One nose-mounted 20mm autocannon. Two hardpoints in the troop bay allow for additional crew-served weapons to be mounted on, ranging from the standard 12.7mm machine gun to a 40mm semi-automatic grenade launcher with pseudo-homing munitions (against aircraft) that can release EM pulses upon munition detonation. Approximate modern equivalent: V-22 Osprey.
> >
> > - B-61 Shortsword: Two 30mm autocannons. Large bomb payload (though the exact size is unknown, as is the same with EVERY SINGLE BOMBER in the UNSC arsenal). Approximate modern equivalent: A-3 Skywarrior (approximately), design is akin to that of the B-2 Spirit.
> >
> > - F-41 Broadsword: Two 35mm autocannons, two missile pods (which can fit two missiles each, according to the model). Can carry at least one bomb. Shielded. Approximate modern equivalent: F-35 Lightning II.
> >
> > - D77-TC Pelican: 40mm gatling prior to 2525, replaced by a 70mm swivel-mounted autocannon (with a 120 degree traverse) on most models after 2525. Two missile pods with eight missiles loaded in each, additional missiles held within). Approximate modern equivalent: Mi-24/Hind (combining firepower with troop transport/tank-hauling capability).
> >
> > - G79H-TC Pelican: 70mm nose-mounted swivel-mounted autocannon. Dorsal-mounted 90mm cannon capable of swiveling around. M8C heavy nose-mounted (Spartan) laser system, likely next to/attached to the 70mm autocannon. Two 12.7mm machine guns mounted on the left and right sides of the aircraft, underneath the wings. Approximate modern equivalent: Mi-24/Hind (only even more upgunned).
> >
> > - AC-220 Vulture: Four swivel-mounted 20mm cannons chambered in .50 caliber (it is likely a typo given the effects of that specific weapon, but sadly, it remains canon). 4-8 large missile pods with one missile loaded in each (additional missiles contained within). 18 smaller missile pods (with one missile each) for additional anti-air capability. Approximate modern equivalent: AC-130 Spectre.
> >
> > - GA-TL1 Longsword, C712 variant: Two forward-mounted 50mm autocannons, four missile hardpoints. Large bomb bay. Approximate modern equivalent: B-52 Stratofortress (did I mention that the GA-TL1 is huge?)
> >
> > - GA-TL1 Longsword, C709 variant: One nose-mounted 110mm rotary cannon, two ventral-mounted retractable swivel-capable (90 degree traverse) 120mm cannons, four missile hardpoints, and a bomb bay capable of carrying 36 mines (of unknown size). Approximate modern equivalent: A-10 Thunderbolt II (on PCP).
>
>
> And now I’ll have to edit the bolded section, because the B-65’s appearance is actually more akin to the Ho-229 than the B-2. Also will check with Halopedia staff to make an edit to their trivia section for the Shortsword for the same reasons.
>
> …Hell, it fits the criteria for some of the specs too, such as the 30mm MK 108s (an exact match for the B-65’s 30mm MLAs) - the only reason for using the A-3 Skywarrior as an example of a ‘modern’ Shortsword (handwaving away the fact of the A-3 being retired for a while now) is that it actually had guns. The B-1 and B-2 don’t.
>
> …The only thing that doesn’t match is the size (well, that and the flight ceiling, and the possibility that the B-65 could be nuclear-powered like the GA-TL1). The B-65’s size is more of a match to the B-2 (longer length, shorter wingspan, about the same height though - with landing gear up) than the Luftwaffe’s experimental long-bomber. Damn near everything else checks out though.
>
> Hey, Beta 5 Operator, VerbalStatue253, what do you think about this?

It’s no secret that many of the Luffwaffe experimental aircraft were taken by the Allies at wars end and used to form new combat aircraft. The flying wing design is probably the most famous one. I would say you don’t have to edit the B-2 reference as the design and role are the same. If the B-2 wasnt just relaying on stealth then it too would have some type of defence system.

As for the B-65 powersource, while not impossible to be nuclear driven I think that it uses more conventional means, maybe a hydrogen engine principle similar to the warthog. That could be used to explain why it’s only an atmospheric craft where as if it was nuclear one could argue that it could reach orbit given its power supply.

Let’s just fan edit it to say the shortsword was a collaborative effort by German and American corporations famous for flying wing designs.

> 2533274942408157;4:
> > 2533274850752370;3:
> > > 2533274942408157;2:
> > > > 2533274850752370;1:
> > > > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
>
>
>
>
> > - -snip-
>
>
> And now I’ll have to edit the bolded section, because the B-65’s appearance is actually more akin to the Ho-229 than the B-2. Also will check with Halopedia staff to make an edit to their trivia section for the Shortsword for the same reasons.
>
> …Hell, it fits the criteria for some of the specs too, such as the 30mm MK 108s (an exact match for the B-65’s 30mm MLAs) - the only reason for using the A-3 Skywarrior as an example of a ‘modern’ Shortsword (handwaving away the fact of the A-3 being retired for a while now) is that it actually had guns. The B-1 and B-2 don’t.
>
> …The only thing that doesn’t match is the size (well, that and the flight ceiling, and the possibility that the B-65 could be nuclear-powered like the GA-TL1). The B-65’s size is more of a match to the B-2 (longer length, shorter wingspan, about the same height though - with landing gear up) than the Luftwaffe’s experimental long-bomber. Damn near everything else checks out though.
>
> Hey, Beta 5 Operator, VerbalStatue253, what do you think about this?

Looks like I’m late to the party…

Besides the fact that you haven’t referred to the C709 variant as the “Claymore” :V everything checks out from a cursory glance. As to the B-65, its definitely a wicked design - and thats not a compliment. More on that later.

First I want to address the possibilities of “viable” drive output system and energy generation for this vehicle.

> 2533274943975523;8:
> > 2533274942408157;4:
> > > 2533274850752370;3:
> > > > 2533274942408157;2:
> > > > > 2533274850752370;1:
> > > > > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The (exo/atmospheric) aircraft on said profile picture is that of the UNSC’s B-65 Shortsword, which is itself intended to be a reference to the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber.
> > > >
> > > > Though Northrop-Grumman did study the specs of the Horton HIX (and the ‘working model’ of it, the HO-229 V3) to assist with the design of the B-2, so if you want to be pedantic about it, sure, the B-65 is an evolution of a Luftwaffle aircraft (and same with the GA-TL1 Longsword in that case).
>
>
> It’s no secret that many of the Luffwaffe experimental aircraft were taken by the Allies at wars end and used to form new combat aircraft. The flying wing design is probably the most famous one. I would say you don’t have to edit the B-2 reference as the design and role are the same. If the B-2 wasnt just relaying on stealth then it too would have some type of defence system.
>
> As for the B-65 powersource, while not impossible to be nuclear driven I think that it uses more conventional means, maybe a hydrogen engine principle similar to the warthog. That could be used to explain why it’s only an atmospheric craft where as if it was nuclear one could argue that it could reach orbit given its power supply.
>
> Let’s just fan edit it to say the shortsword was a collaborative effort by German and American corporations famous for flying wing designs.

I agree with the initial assessment - the trivia section doesn’t need any edits, since the B-2 likely still holds some influence over the original conceptualization of the B-65 models. Of course, the design team likely took influence from an array of other flying wing aircraft - though I’m trying to find any aircraft that shares that prolonged fuselage (Increased stability for a flying wing bomber or needlessly complex? Large trailing edges? It’s not exactly a subtle design for a ‘flying wing’) Verbalstatue253, SC Matt 7, thoughts on the matter?

As for the mention of incorporating hydrogen energy sources, lets try to break it down. I mean, lets throw away economics for the moment (cost of expensive metallurgy, refined processing, cooling equipment, transportation/storage, updated mandates over handling volatile materials, etc) - were talking about a “suborbital long-range strategic bomber”.

That means that the airframe should be able to reach an service ceiling of ~330,000 feet above Earth Mean Sea Level, operate in a (min) radius of 2,500 nautical miles wide at design gross weight and design bomb load (not too concerned about that under these circumstances), and achieve velocities of around 2200-2700 mph to achieve the sub-orbital flight requirements.

In that regard, HI-ICE (air intake requires twice the amount of air compared to conventional ICE!) wouldn’t fill that criteria. Operational ceiling limit would be much lower then our modern-day civilian airliners to begin with (We’re talking about an optimal height of 20,000-29,000 ft above Earth MSL for your proposal) HICE wouldn’t work here either. At best, you might be looking at some sort of hydrogen-injected thermal propulsion system… which is still nuclear. And still has its own share of tradeoffs.

There are also issues arising from storing hydrogen in the plane… requiring ~4x the amount of tank volume then jet-a fuel (despite hydrogen in either slurry or gas form having a fraction of density of unleaded kerosene). That is a big increase in additional inert mass (outside storage pods wouldn’t be viable due to the inefficient surface-to-volume ratio of the storage tanks - which means the B-65 just got a lot more cramped inside) and there’s still the hydrogen “boil-off”, leakage, specialized equipment, increased crew safety measures (Hydrogen has a higher energy density compared to [Jet-A, Jet-B, JP-4, JP-5, JP-8]- depending on how compressed it is - ~42mj/kg to ~130mj/kg), replacement costs (though that’s in regard to equipment exposure and corrosion), and increased sophistication issues.

And in turn, you get an increase in thermal and fuel efficiency (+15-20%), and operational range. I’m not gonna pretend that nuclear propulsion is perfect either (radiation, thrust output/temperature extremes, complexity, potential for catastrophe if a single thing goes wrong) but it makes the most sense out of the bunch. We know the Longsword and Broadsword use a micro-fusion reactor, why wouldn’t the Shortsword? You wanna keep to the same science and principles, similar equipment, for convenience and training reasons. Plus its already -Yoink!- effective.

> agree with the initial assessment - the trivia section doesn’t need any edits, since the B-2 likely still holds some influence over the original conceptualization of the B-65 models. Of course, the design team likely took influence from an array of other flying wing aircraft - though I’m trying to find any aircraft that shares that prolonged fuselage (Increased stability for a flying wing bomber or needlessly complex? Large trailing edges? It’s not exactly a subtle design for a ‘flying wing’) VerbalStatue253, SC Matt 7, thoughts on the matter?As for the mention of incorporating hydrogen energy sources, lets try to break it down. I mean, lets throw away economics for the moment (cost of expensive metallurgy, refined processing, cooling equipment, transportation/storage, updated mandates over handling volatile materials, etc) - were talking about a “suborbital long-range strategic bomber”.That means that the airframe should be able to reach an service ceiling of ~330,000 feet above Earth Mean Sea Level, operate in a (min) radius of 2,500 nautical miles wide at design gross weight and design bomb load (not too concerned about that under these circumstances), and achieve velocities of around 2200-2700 mph to achieve the sub-orbital flight requirements.In that regard, HI-ICE (air intake requires twice the amount of air compared to conventional ICE!) wouldn’t fill that criteria. Operational ceiling limit would be much lower then our modern-day civilian airliners to begin with (We’re talking about an optimal height of 20,000-29,000 ft above Earth MSL for your proposal) HICE wouldn’t work here either. At best, you might be looking at some sort of hydrogen-injected thermal propulsion system… which is still nuclear. And still has its own share of tradeoffs.There are also issues arising from storing hydrogen in the plane… requiring ~4x the amount of tank volume then jet-a fuel (despite hydrogen in either slurry or gas form having a fraction of density of unleaded kerosene). That is a big increase in additional inert mass (outside storage pods wouldn’t be viable due to the inefficient surface-to-volume ratio of the storage tanks - which means the B-65 just got a lot more cramped inside) and there’s still the hydrogen “boil-off”, leakage, specialized equipment, increased crew safety measures (Hydrogen has a higher energy density compared to [Jet-A, Jet-B, JP-4, JP-5, JP-8]- depending on how compressed it is - ~42mj/kg to ~130mj/kg), replacement costs (though that’s in regard to equipment exposure and corrosion), and increased sophistication issues.And in turn, you get an increase in thermal and fuel efficiency (+15-20%), and operational range. I’m not gonna pretend that nuclear propulsion is perfect either (radiation, thrust output/temperature extremes, complexity, potential for catastrophe if a single thing goes wrong) but it makes the most sense out of the bunch. We know the Longsword and Broadsword use a micro-fusion reactor, why wouldn’t the Shortsword? You wanna keep to the same science and principles, similar equipment, for convenience and training reasons. Plus its already -Yoink!- effective.

I completely agree with what you are saying Beta 5 operator that with a proven system like the micro fusion reactor in the Longsword and Broadsword that it would be standard amongst all UNSC single craft. Maybe its a less powerful reactor which prevents it from gaining orbit or as I was suggesting a more conventional powerplant.

That could explain the design of the B-65 extended fuselage. As for stability I would think of it as the UNSCs F-117, a craft which is entirely dependant on fly by wire system to keep it airborne along with any structural additions such as gyroscopes and winglets.
Beta 5 operator do you have any airframe variations to add the VTOL fleet? At some point I would also do a similar variation and creation post for UNSC single craft. Broadswords,Longswords etc.

> 2533274943975523;10:
> > agree with the initial assessment - the trivia section doesn’t need any edits, since the B-2 likely still holds some influence over the original conceptualization of the B-65 models. Of course, the design team likely took influence from an array of other flying wing aircraft - though I’m trying to find any aircraft that shares that prolonged fuselage (Increased stability for a flying wing bomber or needlessly complex? Large trailing edges? It’s not exactly a subtle design for a ‘flying wing’) VerbalStatue253, SC Matt 7, thoughts on the matter?As for the mention of incorporating hydrogen energy sources, lets try to break it down. I mean, lets throw away economics for the moment (cost of expensive metallurgy, refined processing, cooling equipment, transportation/storage, updated mandates over handling volatile materials, etc) - were talking about a “suborbital long-range strategic bomber”.That means that the airframe should be able to reach an service ceiling of ~330,000 feet above Earth Mean Sea Level, operate in a (min) radius of 2,500 nautical miles wide at design gross weight and design bomb load (not too concerned about that under these circumstances), and achieve velocities of around 2200-2700 mph to achieve the sub-orbital flight requirements.In that regard, HI-ICE (air intake requires twice the amount of air compared to conventional ICE!) wouldn’t fill that criteria. Operational ceiling limit would be much lower then our modern-day civilian airliners to begin with (We’re talking about an optimal height of 20,000-29,000 ft above Earth MSL for your proposal) HICE wouldn’t work here either. At best, you might be looking at some sort of hydrogen-injected thermal propulsion system… which is still nuclear. And still has its own share of tradeoffs.There are also issues arising from storing hydrogen in the plane… requiring ~4x the amount of tank volume then jet-a fuel (despite hydrogen in either slurry or gas form having a fraction of density of unleaded kerosene). That is a big increase in additional inert mass (outside storage pods wouldn’t be viable due to the inefficient surface-to-volume ratio of the storage tanks - which means the B-65 just got a lot more cramped inside) and there’s still the hydrogen “boil-off”, leakage, specialized equipment, increased crew safety measures (Hydrogen has a higher energy density compared to [Jet-A, Jet-B, JP-4, JP-5, JP-8]- depending on how compressed it is - ~42mj/kg to ~130mj/kg), replacement costs (though that’s in regard to equipment exposure and corrosion), and increased sophistication issues.And in turn, you get an increase in thermal and fuel efficiency (+15-20%), and operational range. I’m not gonna pretend that nuclear propulsion is perfect either (radiation, thrust output/temperature extremes, complexity, potential for catastrophe if a single thing goes wrong) but it makes the most sense out of the bunch. We know the Longsword and Broadsword use a micro-fusion reactor, why wouldn’t the Shortsword? You wanna keep to the same science and principles, similar equipment, for convenience and training reasons. Plus its already -Yoink!- effective.
>
>
> I completely agree with what you are saying Beta 5 Operator that with a proven system like the micro fusion reactor in the Longsword and Broadsword that it would be standard amongst all UNSC single craft. Maybe its a less powerful reactor which prevents it from gaining orbit or as I was suggesting a more conventional powerplant.
>
> That could explain the design of the B-65 extended fuselage. As for stability I would think of it as the UNSCs F-117, a craft which is entirely dependant on fly by wire system to keep it airborne along with any structural additions such as gyroscopes and winglets.
> Beta 5 Operator do you have any airframe variations to add the VTOL fleet? At some point I would also do a similar variation and creation post for UNSC single craft. Broadswords,Longswords etc.

That’s what I was thinking.

XD Yeah, I could share one.

> E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame, heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.
>
> Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).
>
> While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.
>
> Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.

> E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.

Beta 5 operator that is easily one of the best fan variants made. It is always very easy to forget that cyberspace and warfare are as important and massive a role in modern combat as any airstrike or precision SF attack.

> 2533274943975523;12:
> > E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.
>
>
> Beta 5 Operator that is easily one of the best fan variants made. It is always very easy to forget that cyberspace and warfare are as important and massive a role in modern combat as any airstrike or precision SF attack.

Thanks man. I agree, the guys working behind the scenes just don’t get much love in the lore.

> 2533274889125491;13:
> > 2533274943975523;12:
> > > E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.
> >
> >
> > Beta 5 Operator that is easily one of the best fan variants made. It is always very easy to forget that cyberspace and warfare are as important and massive a role in modern combat as any airstrike or precision SF attack.
>
>
> Thanks man. I agree, the guys working behind the scenes just don’t get much love in the lore.

True, we got a very slight idea with Kat in Reach as she acted as the information analysis for the team and even the target designator hinted at this slightly.
I am currently working on variants and new ideas for the UNSC single craft such as the sword classes as well as armed drones. Will post themore here first before a new thread to hear what Beta 5 operator andSC Matt 7 think.

They’re both flying wings is probably the biggest thing you can draw from it.
Which makes sense since the less area you have on an exo/endo atmosphere bomber the faster it can go and the less resistance it has passing into the atmosphere. No tail section means nothing to catch the air and heat up as it goes down through the “soup”, so it can slip through with minimal heat shielding required.
Also, a flying wing shape makes it very good for holding lots and lots of bombs.
I might be too late to add this already obviously awesome discussion but thats just my two cents

> 2533274850752370;1:
> The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.

What will this get locked for?

> 2535435095884856;16:
> > 2533274850752370;1:
> > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
>
>
> What will this get locked for?

Godwin, most likely.

> 2533274889125491;13:
> > 2533274943975523;12:
> > > E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.
> >
> >
> > Beta 5 Operator that is easily one of the best fan variants made. It is always very easy to forget that cyberspace and warfare are as important and massive a role in modern combat as any airstrike or precision SF attack.
>
>
> Thanks man. I agree, the guys working behind the scenes just don’t get much love in the lore.

Agreed.
OneDrive seems to have crapped out on me, cannot get images off MCC/H5G of profile-view air assets and such.

> 2533274943975523;14:
> > 2533274889125491;13:
> > > 2533274943975523;12:
> > > > E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.
> > >
> > >
> > > Beta 5 Operator that is easily one of the best fan variants made. It is always very easy to forget that cyberspace and warfare are as important and massive a role in modern combat as any airstrike or precision SF attack.
> >
> >
> > Thanks man. I agree, the guys working behind the scenes just don’t get much love in the lore.
>
>
> True, we got a very slight idea with Kat in Reach as she acted as the information analysis for the team and even the target designator hinted at this slightly.
> I am currently working on variants and new ideas for the UNSC single craft such as the sword classes as well as armed drones. Will post themore here first before a new thread to hear what Beta 5 Operator andSC Matt 7 think.

I’m not a good judge of aircraft specifications, though it is always interesting to see what the community can come up with. The E-84 Songbird, for instance, sounds like a theater-scale [UH-144E?] Nightingale (the unarmed detector-variant Falcon from HW2).

Its a plane. It flies up and down and left and right. It sometimes shoots things.

The nazis did it!

> 2533274942408157;17:
> > 2535435095884856;16:
> > > 2533274850752370;1:
> > > The HO 229(AKA.Horton 229) looks similar to the jet on my profile pic(right next to my name).This will probably get locked but I want a explanation before this gets supposedly locked.
> >
> >
> > What will this get locked for?
>
>
> Godwin, most likely.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274889125491;13:
> > > 2533274943975523;12:
> > > > E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274943975523;14:
> > > 2533274889125491;13:
> > > > 2533274943975523;12:
> > > > > E-84 “Songbird” : Built off the Condor frame,heavily modified. Suborbital Airborne Battlefield and Ground Surveillance (ISR) platform.Hardpoints (and related fire-control systems) have been stripped out in an attempt to retain base weight in regards to the incorporation of numerous communications, surveillance, and coordination (C&C) subsystems that are required to fulfill its battle management functions (Don’t get me started on the EW suite either). The external profile has been streamlined too - smoother/ curved surfaces, sensor coatings, etc - the full package, which has helped in reducing the overall RCS (and visual signature).While the Songbird lacks a “true” armament (it’s a one-man cyber army), it features all kinds of defensive systems in the form of cutting-edge ECM and ECCMs. However, these updates have also contributed to increased weight… and ruinous unit cost.Approximate modern equivalent: E-8C or Raytheon Sentinel.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Beta 5 Operator that is easily one of the best fan variants made. It is always very easy to forget that cyberspace and warfare are as important and massive a role in modern combat as any airstrike or precision SF attack.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks man. I agree, the guys working behind the scenes just don’t get much love in the lore.
> >
> >
> > True, we got a very slight idea with Kat in Reach as she acted as the information analysis for the team and even the target designator hinted at this slightly.
> > I am currently working on variants and new ideas for the UNSC single craft such as the sword classes as well as armed drones. Will post themore here first before a new thread to hear what Beta 5 Operator andSC Matt 7 think.
>
>
> I’m not a good judge of aircraft specifications, though it is always interesting to see what the community can come up with. The E-84 Songbird, for instance, sounds like a theater-scale [UH-144E?] Nightingale (the unarmed detector-variant Falcon from HW2).

I honestly can’t say, in reference to the comparison for the Nightingale, as it appears to be some kind of utility aircraft (And I’m completely speculating here, as it does appear to be an analogue to the Falcon) that has been rigged with BA-enhancing gear/updating threat information (detection mechanic). Its main purpose, after all, is to transport the required materials to maintain the ground forces (repair mechanic).

To sum it up, you are correct in it playing a critical role in the theater of operations.

The main idea was to have some kind of buffer (for the Battlenet) and command node between ground stations, friendly forces, and whatever platforms/network they have in orbit (in accordance with mobile processing center concepts, UNSC warships especially those designed for Coordination (C&C) roles, like the Valiant-class heavy cruisers would fall under) - something to manage the vast amounts of information that are coming from the region, manage/coordinate efforts while providing information in real-time to the commanding element, and finally, exploit weaknesses in the enemy’s vulnerable communications networks and cyber defenses.